( 2026:HHC:38094 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 935 of 2026 Decided on 07th September, 2026 Pawan Kumar & Anr. …Petitioner Versus State of HP and Anr. …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chirag Bhanu Singh, Judge. 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Rajat Awasthy, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Chirag Bhanu Singh, Judge (Oral) The petitioners preferred the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking the quashing of FIR No.292 of 2021 dated 18.12.2021, registered for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 63 and 64 of Copyright Act at Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P. 2. The short case set up by the petitioner is that in pursuance to the aforesaid FIR, the trial is pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District -2- ( 2026:HHC:38094 ) Solan, H.P. During the pendency of the trial, with the intervention of the respectable person and the villagers they have amicable settled their dispute. The complainant has voluntarily entered into a compromise with the petitioners and he also stands no objection if the case FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising thereto are quashed. The compromise has been arrived at voluntarily and without any coercion or under influence. The copy of the compromise deed has also been placed on record vide Annexure P-2. 3. During the course of proceedings before this Court on 26.08.2026, the complainant, had placed on record the compromise deed entered inter se the parties and as a sequel the respondent No.2 had been directed to be present in the Court to ascertain the genuineness and correctness of the Compromise Annexure P-2, on record. 4. Today, both the accused and the complainant (respondent No.2) are present in the Court. The complainant has stood by the Compromise Deed Annexure P-2. He has identified his signatures on the Compromise Deed and submitted that the compromise has been effected inter se the parties voluntarily and without any element of coercion and undue influence on any of -3- ( 2026:HHC:38094 ) them. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record meticulously. 6. It is by now fairly well settled that apart from quashing compoundable offences this Court also has sufficient power to quash even proceedings involving non-compounded offences. 7. In view of the compromise entered inter se the parties, while exercising the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. this Court can quash the proceedings though having due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime and its impact on the society at large. Generally, heinous offenses of mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity etc. may not come within the purview of the same, but offenses arising from commercial, financial, mercantile and civil, partnership, matrimonial or family disputes, where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature may be given a quietus, excising such powers. 8. The quashing of proceedings though must still not tantamount to the abuse of the process of law. The aforesaid proposition already stand answer by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in no uncertain terms in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303. -4- ( 2026:HHC:38094 ) 9. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anand Kumar @ Sanjay Lalwani vs. State of MP and Anr. Special Leave Petition (Crl). No.19051 of 2025 dated 31.08.2026 has further expounded the proposition that even in cases, wherein, offence under Section 420 IPC is made out the power of quashment may be exercised but only when the victim himself authorizes the settlement. 10. In the case in hand, the complainant Sushil Kumar, who also happens to be “victim” has unequivocally submitted that he has compromised the matter with the accused. The text and tenor of the FIR Annexure P-1 also clearly suggests that he was the victim himself and had set the criminal law into motion. He had himself authorised the settlement entered inter se the parties and has further vouched for it in the Court today. It is crystal clear that the parties have indeed settled the dispute voluntarily. A separate statement of the victim’s/ complainant also stands recorded. 11. Thus seeing to the entire gamete of circumstances and the law discussed above this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the criminal proceedings, henceforth, would indeed tantamount to the abuse of the process of law, despite a settlement and a compromise having been entered between the parties. It would be in the interest of justice and fair play that the criminal -5- ( 2026:HHC:38094 ) proceedings are put to an end, moreso, keeping in view the burgeoning pendency of cases. The unwanted cases can be given a quietus enabling the Courts to give due weightage and time to the deserving cases on its docket. Seeing to the nature of allegations and gravity of the offence this Court will be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings against the accused and it is ordered accordingly. 12. As a squeal of the FIR No. 292 of 2021 dated 18.12.2021, registered for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 63 and 64 of Copyright Act at Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P. and consequential proceedings emanating thereof are quashed and set aside. Order accordingly. 13. Petition stand disposed off in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application, if any. (Chirag Bhanu Singh) Judge 07.09.2026 (Ritu)